Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 101 to 143 of 143
  1. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BoogieMang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    286
    After all the recent tubeless talk, I decided to finally take the plunge with my pretty much stock Pugs wheels... Mostly because I really took notice on a recent ride of how difficult it was to get the wheels back up to speed whenever I slowed down. I was originally going to do the ghetto split tube method, but the recent vids/posts on the gorilla tape method convinced me to go that route. I picked up a couple of rolls of weather stripping and a big roll of gorilla tape on my lunch break, and plan to follow through with it this weekend. I blame you all

  2. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    253
    I've run my regular 26" mountain bike wheels tubeless with Stan's sealant and rim strips for many years. I wouldn't go back to tubes for my main wheelset. I have a problem maybe once a year or so where I burp the tire or something. I used to get flats from thorns quite often, so tubeless is much more reliable for me.

    I do have a second wet of wheels as a backup, though. I don't use them much, so I run tubes on them. I have 3 sets of tires (mud spikes, semi-slicks, and studded) that get put on, and its a lot easier to switch with tubes. The mud tires aren't recommended for tubeless use by the manufacturer. They must know what they are talking about as beads blow off the rims if used without tubes.(I tried )).

    I have an On-One Fatty on order which will come with tubes, no doubt. I'm planning on going tubeless with this once I see what the rims look like. I have some old Stan's rim strips that I may cut down the middle. I'm thinking of putting 1/2 at the edge of the rim under the bead hook, then a Surly rim strip over that. I guess that it all depends on the size and shape of the rim which I won't have a feel for until the bike gets here.

  3. #103
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,074
    Quote Originally Posted by coastkid71 View Post

    Along with folk asking if you paint a frame with plastic coat how much heavier will it be I think this is exactly why i do not come on here much anymore...


    Well the gates are open now...
    Well if no one is interested in the thread it will dissappear into obscurity in less than 1 day as thats the time it takes till a thread goes to page 2. In the 9 months i have been riding a fat bike i have noticed more traffic here and it will continue to increase as the bikes get more popular..... with that come more tyres options, forks, FS frames and everything else, you cant have your cake and eat it.... eventually it will become like the 29er forum.

    I also posted tubeless tuesday, when someone searches "tubeless" on the fatbike forum it will come up. We are doing so with the idea of helping each other out, im a very grateful to the guys that posted up their tubeless conversions that certainly helped me.
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  4. #104
    Vagician
    Reputation: EPcycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    We are doing so with the idea of helping each other out, im a very grateful to the guys that posted up their tubeless conversions that certainly helped me.
    You have the right idea ozzy. It's all about sharing experiences and helping each other out. It's rather unfortunate if some people don't like that, but we can never make everyone happy. I do know that some have benefited from threads like this one and yours and that's all that matters.

  5. #105
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DubzOxford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    104
    I posted this in Tubeless Tuesday as well, but thought it would be worth posting it here too.

    My Surly Cycling cap is off to those of you that were able to make your Holy Rolling Darrylís tubeless. I thought about going tubeless since day one when I got my Neco. I scanned the pages of the fat bike forum looking for suggestions and final decided to make the plunge this morning. I grabbed a roll of Gorilla tape, a set of Stans tubeless valves, some foam to fill the valley, and started off on my unknown venture. Everything went just as planned, I put the final strip of tape across the rim, put my valve in, mounted my 120tpi Knard and to the compressor I went. I attempted to fill the tire with absolutely no luck. No matter what I did I could not get the tire to fill with air. In frustration and lack of time, I removed all the items that created my useless Tubeless system. The ball of tape, foam and valve that I had in my hand felt rather heavy. For grins I took out my scale and weighed the mess. 200 grams on the noise. With the 265 gram tubes in which I was going to replace, I decided to hold off on another attempt to go tubeless.
    Until I can figure out my mistake, I will live with the 130 gram combined difference.
    Fat and Single

  6. #106
    Nice try
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    62
    It is a strange time for fat bikers as the old heavy options are still valid and many new lighter choices appear and with it new members and their opinions to this cool sharing forum. Having ridden anything that rolls from my old clunker 1956 hawthorn at 45lbs to my roadie at 15.5lbs I enjoy trying different things and for those that don't follow my weirdness don't be offended. I believe the best thing we can do is welcome it all and choose a path along the lines that interest you. Hey we're all cyclists after all!!

    Anyway, sorry back OT. During down time yesterday I thought I'd blow off some steam and try tubeless on my HRD's and Husker Du's. yes I love tubeless on my other bikes AND the weight of the wheels. Only thing I didn't have was the foam so first attempt was done without. Used my pirate duct tape so it showed thru the rim holes then did a lap of gorilla tape on one half then the other. Not having the foam build up left some wrinkles that could and would be problematic. Figured it would be a learning experience. So finally to the part that may be helpfull........combining a couple tricks from moto and mtn biking I put a strap around the tire to compress the middle and then with the compressor cranking air gave the tire the ol b%*tch slap(literally) and bam the bead seated!! Pumped to 30psi and did the Stan's dance and was very close to getting a great seal but for those wrinkles in the gorilla tape which started Stan's coming out some unused spoke holes and a couple on the rim edge. Soif you get to where the air is blowing all over try strapping it and slapping it and you'll be amazed. Now to follow the instructions and go get foam...........back soon!

  7. #107
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by Brogrease View Post
    It is a strange time for fat bikers as the old heavy options are still valid and many new lighter choices appear and with it new members and their opinions to this cool sharing forum. Having ridden anything that rolls from my old clunker 1956 hawthorn at 45lbs to my roadie at 15.5lbs I enjoy trying different things and for those that don't follow my weirdness don't be offended. I believe the best thing we can do is welcome it all and choose a path along the lines that interest you. Hey we're all cyclists after all!!

    Anyway, sorry back OT. During down time yesterday I thought I'd blow off some steam and try tubeless on my HRD's and Husker Du's. yes I love tubeless on my other bikes AND the weight of the wheels. Only thing I didn't have was the foam so first attempt was done without. Used my pirate duct tape so it showed thru the rim holes then did a lap of gorilla tape on one half then the other. Not having the foam build up left some wrinkles that could and would be problematic. Figured it would be a learning experience. So finally to the part that may be helpfull........combining a couple tricks from moto and mtn biking I put a strap around the tire to compress the middle and then with the compressor cranking air gave the tire the ol b%*tch slap(literally) and bam the bead seated!! Pumped to 30psi and did the Stan's dance and was very close to getting a great seal but for those wrinkles in the gorilla tape which started Stan's coming out some unused spoke holes and a couple on the rim edge. Soif you get to where the air is blowing all over try strapping it and slapping it and you'll be amazed. Now to follow the instructions and go get foam...........back soon!
    sounds like you might benefit from going split tube. I've done both and split tube is probably a bit heavier, but there's no worries that the tape hasn't sealed well enough.

    Temperature also affects how well the tape adheres and thus how good of a seal you have.

  8. #108
    This place needs an enema
    Reputation: mikesee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    9,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Saul Lumikko View Post
    Sounds to me like the beads don't connect tight enough with the "bead shelf" on the rim. I'd wrap a round or two of tape on the rim and retry. If the bead raises and snaps on the rim too easily, it's loose. I prefer to have such a tight fit that it requires soapy water to slip on and breaking the bead needs two thumbs and an "oomph" (when deflated).
    The problem with this theory is that you've then rendered the bead hook useless by covering it over with tape.

    I can already break the beads free (not easily, but possible) when riding *even when the bead hooks are intact*. Entirely removing them from the equation is unsafe.

  9. #109
    Nice try
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    62
    Thanks Gentleman. I probably will do the split tube method as it looks better for the "seal". I forgot to go to Home Depot for foam but I did stop at my lbs and he was out of the tubes I wanted. Go figure! Anyway I had time so it was good to give it a go and learn something in the process. Yup get my act together is what I learned! Haha..... Supposed to get up to a foot of snow tonight so I gotta go ride now, I can play in garage later. Come on SNOW!

  10. #110
    Vagician
    Reputation: EPcycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    The problem with this theory is that you've then rendered the bead hook useless by covering it over with tape.

    I can already break the beads free (not easily, but possible) when riding *even when the bead hooks are intact*. Entirely removing them from the equation is unsafe.
    Agreed, I think. I would bet that any more than one layer of thick gorilla style tape or rubber tube covering the bead lock is excessive and could make the bead hook less effective. It also puts extra unnecessary stress on the tire bead itself.

    Mike made a great point earlier when he said that the Surly rims/tires weren't designed for tubeless, although some of us have found ways around that..... Quite successfully, I might add. What this means is that your ghetto tubeless setup if executed poorly could fail unexpectedly. Be careful.

    Some people, on the other hand, have done fat tubeless many times and have logged hundreds of hours over multiple years on these setups with great results.
    Are they perfect? Nope.
    Can they still fail? Yup.
    Will I switch back to tubes any time soon? Nope.
    Why do I hate tubes? I don't. They are pretty cool. In fact, I always carry one or two in my pack on every ride..... Usually for my friends.

  11. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,042
    The Q-Tubes 26x2.4-2.7 Superlight tubes weigh 235grams, effectively the same weight as a ghetto tubeless conversion. It's a good option for those who want the weight reduction but not the hassle.
    Jason
    Disclaimer: www.paramountsports.net

  12. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ze_Zaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    854
    Schwalbe 13F Freeride Extralight 2.1-3.0 tubes weight 185g. Mine even weighted 180g. They are made with some super elastic rubber

  13. #113
    Vagician
    Reputation: EPcycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Ze_Zaskar View Post
    Schwalbe 13F Freeride Extralight 2.1-3.0 tubes weight 185g. Mine even weighted 180g. They are made with some super elastic rubber
    Now that's what I'm talking about! Perfect for a spare.

  14. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Ze_Zaskar View Post
    Schwalbe 13F Freeride Extralight 2.1-3.0 tubes weight 185g. Mine even weighted 180g. They are made with some super elastic rubber
    And they have held just fine in my rolling darryl + bfl combo.

  15. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Ze_Zaskar View Post
    Schwalbe 13F Freeride Extralight 2.1-3.0 tubes weight 185g. Mine even weighted 180g. They are made with some super elastic rubber
    I have these tubes front and back on my Moonlander. With Clown Shoes and BFL's the part at the valve doesn't stretch enough: I have to run higher pressures than I'd like or the side of the tire caves in a little bit. At really low pressures the tire and tube started "creeping" on the rim, so the valve was sticking out at an angle.

    For smaller tires & rims and higher pressures they should be quite fine - and I'll still carry them as a backup after I'm done converting to tubeless.

  16. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ze_Zaskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    854
    They might not be the solution for everyone but work extremelly well for a large part

  17. #117
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,015
    Quote Originally Posted by JAGI410 View Post
    The Q-Tubes 26x2.4-2.7 Superlight tubes weigh 235grams, effectively the same weight as a ghetto tubeless conversion. It's a good option for those who want the weight reduction but not the hassle.
    If you use the 24" version, they have a tighter fit on the rim, and arguably weigh less to boot.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  18. #118
    EOB
    EOB is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    3
    reading through here i see there isn't a real weight advantage with a tubeless fat tire of 3.8+.
    i'm sure the puncture resistant to thorns and such will be a plus...more tubeless questions; hows the ride quality/handling? do you notice a fatter tire?

  19. #119
    Vagician
    Reputation: EPcycles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by EOB View Post
    hows the ride quality/handling? do you notice a fatter tire?
    The tire seems to be more supple when tubeless in my opinion.

    I don't notice that the tire is larger as I would need to do a side by side comparison. That would be an interesting test.

  20. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by MendonCycleSmith View Post
    If you use the 24" version, they have a tighter fit on the rim, and arguably weigh less to boot.
    Is there a 24"x3.0" or some such? It's hard to believe a Q-Tubes Super Light 24" x 1-1/8" would expand to fill a fat bike tire.

  21. #121
    All fat, all the time.
    Reputation: Shark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    6,840
    Here we go again....some "brave" person can't sign his neg comments.....

    " Tubeless vs tubes?? 12-08-2012 01:04 PM You forget yourself."


    Huh? Makes no sense haha.

  22. #122
    All Lefty's, all the time Moderator
    Reputation: MendonCycleSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    15,015
    Quote Originally Posted by FrY10cK View Post
    Is there a 24"x3.0" or some such? It's hard to believe a Q-Tubes Super Light 24" x 1-1/8" would expand to fill a fat bike tire.
    Oops, my mistake, I thought the post I responded to was referring to their use for split tube set up. Thanks for inadvertently catching my error.

    And no, I don;t think a 1 1/8" tube would work well in a fatty, 24 or 26.
    This is a Pugs not some carbon wannabee pretzel wagon!!

    - FrostyStruthers



    www.mendoncyclesmith.com

  23. #123
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    478
    I have ran split tube tubeless on both fat and mountain bike a lot with great success. I only use sealant if I get a leak. As I said in earlier post I like to glue the tube to the tire so I can change tires and not have to replace the tube and deal with the mess if I have used sealant. I do think tubeless is the future in some form. If you look at tires for almost any vehicle they evolved into tubeless of some sort. In my experience with bikes at least 80 % of the flats are a problem with the tube either by the installer or flaw with some part of the process. Just my experience and thoughts.

  24. #124
    ...big and slow
    Reputation: Chromehorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by exp18 View Post
    ...I like to glue the tube to the tire so I can change tires and not have to replace the tube and deal with the mess if I have used sealant.
    Maybe I'm missing something here, or am just too dull or inexperienced of a biker but this sounds interesting to me. So are you saying that you are gluing an entire tube to the inside of the tire? If this isn't what you are saying, I'm wondering how things would work if you did do this? If the tube had sealant in it, would this be as effective as tubeless so far as the puncture sealing benefits of tubeless are concerned? I guess it would mostly depend on how well you have the tube glued to inside of the tire.

    I'm looking to try tubeless this coming weekend pretty much only for the benefit of cutting down on all the silly flats I get from goat heads and thorns in general.

    Let the commence...
    Chromey

  25. #125
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    478
    Quote Originally Posted by Chromehorn View Post
    Maybe I'm missing something here, or am just too dull or inexperienced of a biker but this sounds interesting to me. So are you saying that you are gluing an entire tube to the inside of the tire? If this isn't what you are saying, I'm wondering how things would work if you did do this? If the tube had sealant in it, would this be as effective as tubeless so far as the puncture sealing benefits of tubeless are concerned? I guess it would mostly depend on how well you have the tube glued to inside of the tire.

    I'm looking to try tubeless this coming weekend pretty much only for the benefit of cutting down on all the silly flats I get from goat heads and thorns in general.

    Let the commence...
    I was not very clear on that. No you would do the split tube method but you bond the tire bead only to the split tube before you inflate it. So you have the same system but the tube and tire will stay one unit when it is removed.

  26. #126
    ...big and slow
    Reputation: Chromehorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by exp18 View Post
    I was not very clear on that. No you would do the split tube method but you bond the tire bead only to the split tube before you inflate it. So you have the same system but the tube and tire will stay one unit when it is removed.
    Gotcha. Any particular type of glue or cement used? Does that cause issues if for some reason you need to put a tube in? Or maybe a better question would be is the split tube permanently bonded to the tire? I like the sounds of this setup. Seems it would be "cleaner".
    Chromey

  27. #127
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    478
    There is a good thread that as a great how to do it ( Tubeless fat bike made easy ) the next post is one from me that shows the glue and cleaner i use but there are a lot of them out there.

  28. #128
    ...big and slow
    Reputation: Chromehorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    196
    Thanks for the tip. Looked at the thread and see what your saying now.
    Chromey

  29. #129
    viva la v-brakes!
    Reputation: FishMan473's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by mikesee View Post
    Current operating theory is that the amount of torque on the beads from riding the local chunk (think slow speed rock crawling, even on XC rides) means that they are constantly getting pulled free of the rim, maybe even multiple times per ride. Not enough to burp them (probably because I'm not brave enough to ride them hard yet) but enough that I need to add air every ~20-30 minutes or so when riding. Sometimes there's a visible spot of sealant, sometimes not.
    Mike, you probably already know this, but 'back in the day' when snow riders were first running super low pressures with the 44mm SnowCat rims, some people would have problems with tearing off their valve stems because the tube adhered to the tire and the tire slipped on the rim. The solution was a few dabs of super glue between the rim and the tire which had just enough holding power to keep the tire from slipping. It was only put on one of the beads so you could still change your tube by popping the other bead off. This technique, applied to a tubeless set-up might solve your problem if your theory is correct.

    For those of you who don't know who 'MikeSee' is, he is one of the greatest endurance racers of all time and probably has more miles on a fat bike then everyone else on this thread put together. So his opinion should certainly carry some weight.

    I for one just built up my new bike with Holy Rolling Darylls and 45NRTH tires. I was just going to run lighter tubes and not deal with the hassle of tubeless. However, when I got a flat (borrowed tube came with a hole already in it) I noticed that the bead was holding extremely tightly, took a surprising effort to pop it loose so I could get the tube out. So I'm going to go head down to the basement this morning and give a tubeless set-up a try. If it works out I'll test it on my ride this afternoon.
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    I have a car. I made a choice. I ride my bike.

  30. #130
    viva la v-brakes!
    Reputation: FishMan473's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,874

    tubeless is a weight looser

    Well, I went into my basement and got the bead to seal up easily with my existing rim tape (a 2" strip of reflective fabric and two 2" strips of Scotch strapping tape). However, I decided that this tape might be vulnerable to liquid penetration damaging the adhesive so an extra layer of Gorilla tape would be a wise investment for reliability. I was all set to go, but then I started doing some math:

    1) each scoop of sealant is 60 grams, people are reporting using 3-6 scoops... lets go with 4 scoops for 240 grams.

    2) my Stan's valve weighed in at 7g

    3) then there is the tape. I didn't have any of the extra wide Gorilla tape handy, but I wrapped the normal sized stuff around the inside of my rim, the took it off and measured it (~64" of tape) and then balled it up and weighed it at 40 grams. If you extrapolate that density for the extra wide stuff that will cover your rim in one swipe, that's 63 grams.

    So assuming you are starting with the same rip strip either way, the lightest configuration possible with Gorilla tape tubeless is 310 grams. using 3 strips of standard width Gorilla Tape and 5 scoops of sealant you'd be looking at 427 grams.

    Compare that to:

    Surly 4.0" tubes: 436 g (average of 2)
    Specialized 2.3-3.0" tubes: 280 g (279/279/283)
    Q-Tube Superlight 2.4-2.7": 256 (claimed)

    Conclusion: if weight is your primary concern using a 2.5"+ tube will give you the lightest configuration. A tubeless set-up would range from essentially the same weight as the Surly 4.0" tubes to saving you just over 1/4 pound per wheel depending on the exact configuration.

    Discussion: Personally, I feel that with a lower weight, less effort in the initial setup and easier on-the-trail repairs, lighter tubes are the way to go. I think both would be equally durable with my wheel set up (45Nrth tires and Rolling Daryll rim) based on how well the bead seated. This is probably a result of these parts being designed to fit tightly together so as to reduce wheel slippage at low tire pressures.

    People who ride in rocky terrain or areas with a high potential for punctures seem to strongly prefer the tubeless setup since it is more flat resistant The weight penalty for this set-up is small and would be worthwhile for that use. However, I will be using my bike almost entirely in snow, and in the past 5 years of snow riding (using 44mm SnowCat rims, 2.5" tires and lightweight tubes) I have experienced a total of 1 flat.

    What I want to know is how is performance actually effected by running tubeless on a fat bike? Would there be perceptibly less rolling resistance? Would there be more traction? Are these things quantifiable in any way or are we stuck relying on user reports only?
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
    I have a car. I made a choice. I ride my bike.

  31. #131
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,029

    Friends don't let...

    ...friends run tubes!

    Great slogan for a tee-shirt graphic???

    "tubeless is a weight looser"---that I must take exception to!

    If somebody's a serious weight-weenie then use a cannula and suck the sealant back out of the tire once all the leaks have stopped. I'm pretty sure there'll be less than an ounce left behind!

    As I said in an earlier post:

    I can only speak to doing tubeless ghetto-style on Large Marge's but it is the way to go; not trouble-free but much less trouble than with tubes. (I ride in a puncture-rich environment!)

    Since I run a sealant anyway (Slime) if I'm running tubes my weight saving is in the tubes; 1~2 # depending---all the other weights cancel out.

    What I've been running is either Stan's or SlimePro when I seat the tires (the latex tends to "glue" the tire in place) and then I top off with plain ol' Slime (like what you'd use in your car; comes in the handy gallon size with a pump)---it'll take a couple of weeks before all the leaks seal up.
    Everything else being equal tubeless will always be lighter...

    (BTW; I have run "light" tubes; I've had them fail (split open) for no good reason with the bike just being parked---I don't trust them at all)

    I suppose if one only rides on the beach or on the snow then tubes might be OK for a fat bike. But where I ride in semi-rural California besides the usual punctures from nails, screws and glass we've got 4 or 5 thorny plants eager to flat. Here's some "goat heads" (or "puncture vine") in a 29er tire:

    BTW; this was in a "tubed" set up w/Slime---even though each tire had +/- 50 punctures they all sealed up. The next time I wasn't so lucky; had to pump the rear every couple of miles to complete the ride---that bike is now tubeless. I've had similar situations with the fat bikes; I haven't taken any pictures though.

    Plus something that's not considered very often is that because of the greater tire width a fat bike is 2 or 3 times more likely to contact materials that will give a puncture. (True; with the lower ground pressure objects may be less likely to have the force to penetrate --- but with some of these needle-sharp thorns it doesn't seem to matter)

    Just to add to the discussion; here's a Nate where the sealant can be seen weeping from porosity around the cords:

    The sealant (Slime in this case) is doing it's job---I only need to add air every couple of weeks. BTW; this condition showed up only after running the tire at sub-5 psi for an extended length of time. Probably damaged the sidewall.
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  32. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by exp18 View Post
    I was not very clear on that. No you would do the split tube method but you bond the tire bead only to the split tube before you inflate it. So you have the same system but the tube and tire will stay one unit when it is removed.
    this would be a tubular clincher tire when done like this, no?

    I have seen a tubeless setup for motocross motorcycle rims that uses a small bicycle tube stretched around the rim(whole, not split). this is inflated after the tire is installed, just enough to seal the beads to the rim, then a second valve that goes through the "inner" tube is used to inflate the tire. I think this works only with rims that are much narrower than the tire though.

    I like the idea of gluing a split tube to the tire to make a tubular clincher fatbike tire. Maybe you could even go as far as to use some cloth material across the bottom, glued to the split tube, and sew it all together. then you would have true tubular fat tires for clincher rims.

  33. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Saul Lumikko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by FishMan473 View Post
    Conclusion: if weight is your primary concern using a 2.5"+ tube will give you the lightest configuration. A tubeless set-up would range from essentially the same weight as the Surly 4.0" tubes to saving you just over 1/4 pound per wheel depending on the exact configuration.
    I think we should consider the location of the weight, which is why we're so concerned with rotating mass (especially the rims and tires) in the first place: it makes more of a difference there. Considering that all the weight of a gorilla tape or ghetto tubeless rim strip is at the rim, the radius of the rotation is smaller compared to tubes, which put more mass further from the center.

    Also, when you accelerate not all of the liquid starts to move at once. While the reading on a stationary scale might be the same, 100 grams of liquid in the tire doesn't equal 100 grams of solid rubber when it comes to a rotational acceleration when you ride.

    I'm not saying these things make huge differences, but I think they can not be compared directly gram for gram.

    Quote Originally Posted by FishMan473 View Post
    What I want to know is how is performance actually effected by running tubeless on a fat bike? Would there be perceptibly less rolling resistance? Would there be more traction? Are these things quantifiable in any way or are we stuck relying on user reports only?
    Rolling resistance can be measured fairly easily. The hardest part would be to ensure all other variables are fixed as carefully as possible. This kind of tests provide irrefutable evidence.

    The "liquid effect" of the sealant could be measured with a fairly simple system with the wheel and tire on a truing stand and some kind of weight or spring that pulls on a chain to rotate the wheel, and an accelerometer to record the results.

    For me the feeling of a reduced rolling resistance and improved acceleration and traction is enough. Even if it's mostly placebo, I prefer riding tubeless. The psychological effect of a perceived advantage (even if it's impossible to measure) is a well documented and proven phenomena.

  34. #134
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,074
    Ah you're goat heads are the same as our "3-corner-jacks".

    The sole reason i went tubeless many years ago.

    Carry a 1 spare tube, roll over a jacks patch and you end up with 10-30 punctures in both wheels = Game over (hope your wern't too far from home)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Tubeless vs tubes??-104954124_y1it7mhc_0490prickles.jpg  

    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  35. #135
    middle ring single track
    Reputation: Moe Ped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,029

    Well, not exactly...

    Quote Originally Posted by ozzybmx View Post
    Ah you're goat heads are the same as our "3-corner-jacks".

    The sole reason i went tubeless many years ago.

    Carry a 1 spare tube, roll over a jacks patch and you end up with 10-30 punctures in both wheels = Game over (hope your wern't too far from home)
    ..."our" goatheads; they're an import from southern Europe---how'd Australia be so fortunate to have them native?

    Pretty big problem here in the States; here's a link to the UC Davis page: Puncturevine Management Guidelines--UC IPM

    Good Wiki page for those lucky enough not to be familiar with them: Tribulus terrestris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Here's the pod in its stages of dissemination:

    Almost always lands with a point up!

    Here's a real short clip of me hopping a curb and rolling squarely across a patch; if YouTube is set to HD you can see the seed pods stuck to the tire---probably 2/3 of them have punctured the tube:
    <iframe width="853" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DfcpLIDxqGc?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    Content here does not officially represent the CA DPR.

    Windows 10, destroying humanity one upgrade at a time.

  36. #136
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    I have seen a tubeless setup for motocross motorcycle rims that uses a small bicycle tube stretched around the rim(whole, not split). this is inflated after the tire is installed, just enough to seal the beads to the rim, then a second valve that goes through the "inner" tube is used to inflate the tire. I think this works only with rims that are much narrower than the tire though.
    What you're talking about is the Neutech TuBliss system. It's really an inflatable beadlock that holds a standard tire in place on a standard rim. The orange part is an aluminum plate that holds the outer tire valve stem - and deflects the innerinnertube around it. It also is a "conventional" beadlock to hold the tire where the tube is deflected.

    You tape the spoke holes just like bicycle tubeless, then put the "inner tire&tube" in place. I've been running them on a Suzuki DR350 for about a year w/o issue.

    I've been working towards the same thing for fatbikes, but I'm taking my time working things out so I'm sure it's really close before I try riding it. The basic idea for the "inner tire" is to split a small 26er road slick and sew in a strip of material to fit the fat width:

    The plastic bit sticking up is the transfer tube that let's you air up the outer tire:


    I need to do the next improvement on the transfer tube (now that I've got one that won't crush) to prevent splitting at the ends. Also, the web strap would probably soak up a lot of sealant - so I'm looking at sourcing some sailcloth to replace it.
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  37. #137
    Fat & Single
    Reputation: ozzybmx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    4,074
    They are a nightmare, ok when green as the little thorns are soft, once they dry up they are a ride killer if you run tubes.
    Trek 9.9 Superfly SL
    FM190 Fatty
    Indy Fab Deluxe 29
    Pivot Vault CX
    Cervelo R3 Disc

  38. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation: blockphi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,403
    Anyone have any idea how well a tubeless setup would work in temps down to -15 F or lower? I really want to go tubeless, but with how cold it's been this winter so far, I'm afraid that the really cold temps would be detrimental. Thoughts? Successes?

  39. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BoogieMang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by blockphi View Post
    Anyone have any idea how well a tubeless setup would work in temps down to -15 F or lower? I really want to go tubeless, but with how cold it's been this winter so far, I'm afraid that the really cold temps would be detrimental. Thoughts? Successes?
    Stan's is only good to -20 F before it starts freezing.

  40. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    709
    Quote Originally Posted by wadester View Post
    I've been working towards the same thing for fatbikes, but I'm taking my time working things out so I'm sure it's really close before I try riding it. The basic idea for the "inner tire" is to split a small 26er road slick and sew in a strip of material to fit the fat width:

    The plastic bit sticking up is the transfer tube that let's you air up the outer tire:


    I need to do the next improvement on the transfer tube (now that I've got one that won't crush) to prevent splitting at the ends. Also, the web strap would probably soak up a lot of sealant - so I'm looking at sourcing some sailcloth to replace it.
    I guess if weight savings was not the main goal, you could run a 26x2" tire and tube, and run a second valve that snaked around them, and run a higher pressure in the inner tire, and you would have a setup that would get you home even if the outer tire was completely flat.

  41. #141
    Dr Gadget is IN
    Reputation: wadester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,345
    Quote Originally Posted by autodoctor911 View Post
    I guess if weight savings was not the main goal, you could run a 26x2" tire and tube, and run a second valve that snaked around them, and run a higher pressure in the inner tire, and you would have a setup that would get you home even if the outer tire was completely flat.
    First "proof of concept" did something like that, but a 26x2 wouldn't stretch across the width of the rim (at least on a 100). A FatFrank 26x2.35 worked, but took up too much volume. Running the outer tire at "normal" pressure would have had you running on both tires. Current version is very low profile, as you can see. Using a 26x1.25 slick with an insert keeps it short. Still should work as a "run flat" insert to get you home, since it will still hold the beads in place
    This isn't a "you're doing it wrong" topic.

    WSS/OSS: Open Source Sealant

  42. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by blockphi View Post
    Anyone have any idea how well a tubeless setup would work in temps down to -15 F or lower? I really want to go tubeless, but with how cold it's been this winter so far, I'm afraid that the really cold temps would be detrimental. Thoughts? Successes?
    I haven't had much problem with Stan's freezing, but I have never had it seal a hole below 0C.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •